Tom, I also checked a number of references, attempting to find something about 'red lines' but I too found nothing at all. Looks like our friend has found the possible evidence for a younger (or older!) universe and confused that with the well known red shift and then decided it was a conspiracy by some scientists! What a load of old rubbish from a conspiracy theorist. The answer is as simple as I have said.

and I ask, how do you KNOW?

I do of course know about - and understand - the 'red shift' phenomenon. I had thought that those 'red lines' were something I didn't know about.

I guess there is no such thing as as a 'red line fraud' - conspiracy theories again!

Just had a look at google and it seems I was wrong. Scientists are not dishonest after all. What has actually been found is that there is a possibility that a different measurement could come up with a different answer. The universe could actually be older, or younger, than the generally accepted figure of arounf 13 billion years old. These findings are nothing whatsoever to do with scientists 'trying to skip past' things they don't like. You sound like a conspiracy theorist! The truth is that nobody knows for certain and there are several different ways of making this measurement.

A Harvard astronomer, Avi Loeb, has said the latest research is an interesting and unique way to calculate the universe's expansion rate, but the large error margins limits its effectiveness until more information can be gathered.

In other words, we're talking here about ongoing research and certainly nothing at all to do with scientists 'pretending' that things are different from their calculations. They have just discovered there are other ways of making this measurement and are not yet certain, due to error margins, which is the more correct.

As always, a very simple explanation, nothing to do with conspiracy theories and nothing to do with this thread!

Thanks for the info. I had absolutely no idea that scientists are so dishonest! Your opinions are fascinating, but of course have nothing to do with this thread. There is no god, simple as that!

NINE

FOUR

THREE

I don't know anything about 'red lines' in your context. I quote from the generally accepted date for the start of the universe, which of course has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. I don't comment on things I don't understand.

9

2

5

NINE

TWO

ONE

is possibly correct, but when I count, I make only 100

Nanotechnology sounds great, but the thought of people not dying while new children are born is scary. Many say this planet is over populated. Hopefully if we reach that stage, we will have expanded to other planets and even settled on them.

Onward and upward!

As always, I agree completely with you. What do you think the 'next state' will be? Will it be AI that we have created? Or will humans develop further into beings that we would not recognise if we were able to travel forward in time far enough? Interesting speculation!

NINE

ONE

FOUR

correct count

9
1
5

My apologies, Tom, I was being sloppy. I meant 'accident' in the sense that 'it just happened', and was not created by some non-human wonderful being.

NINE



ONE



ONE

Not only the media, but also most politicians prefer to remain. It's bizarre that both main parties said they would respect the referendum result but neither of them seem to actually have any respect. The Tories were until recently led by an MP who voted to remain and Labour are led by someone who has always been anti EU but has now been forced by his party to have a 'neutral' opinion in the next election.

Seems to me all the Remoaners will vote for the LibDems, the only party that has a clear policy (but the wrong one!). I suspect at the next election, the Tories will win but not with an overall majority. The LibDems will become the offical opposition, and Labour will disappear into the mists of history. Unless the Leave vote is distributed among the Brexit party and the Tories, letting the LibDems in to run the next parliament!

We shall see!